Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40018126›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2024

Barriers and leverage points for seeing alcohol differently in integrated care systems in England: a senior stakeholder interview study.

Mary Madden, Duncan Stewart, Jim McCambridge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mary MaddenUniversity of York, York, UK.
Duncan StewartLondon Metropolitan University, London, UK.
Jim McCambridgeUniversity of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5461-7001

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Integrated care systems (ICSs) are the latest major innovation aiming to develop localised, integrated health and social care services to improve population health in England. Nationally, alcohol has received limited attention in National Health Service (NHS) strategic decision-making relative to its burden of harm, which varies considerably in localities. We examined decision-making and progress on alcohol in two contrasting ICSs, identifying systemic barriers to dealing with alcohol harm and potential leverage points, particularly in primary care. Methods: Qualitative case study in two ICSs differing in strategic prioritisation of alcohol in Northern England. In-depth semistructured interviews with 14 senior stakeholders followed by constructionist thematic analysis. Results: ICS formation occurred when services had been under sustained pressures with lines of communication and accountability emergent and unclear. Stakeholders identified fundamental disconnects between prevention and treatment. ICS strategic prioritisation of alcohol engendered new perspectives and novel actions. Even where not prioritised, there was a demand for placing alcohol work within a population frame. Attention to alcohol was somewhat precarious in primary care and overlooked in NHS health inequalities discourse. Reframing alcohol clinically as a drug was seen as having unrealised potential to prevent or delay disease onset and complications and improve NHS effectiveness. While congruent with the vision of how the new system should be working, there were doubts about capacity in current circumstances. Conclusions: There is much to do to create a joined-up, system-wide approach to alcohol, and thus a strong case for a national NHS alcohol strategy to guide ICS decision-making, addressing links between NHS work and public health.

Indexed as

Primary PreventionPublic HealthSecondary PreventionTertiary Prevention

Identifiers

PMID40018126
PMCPMC11812887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.